Does a public subsidy give the government the right to censor theatre in this way?

For this discussion, please first read this article about the long-running hit musical Billy Elliot being forced to close at the Budapest Opera. Your springboard questions are below. Please do not answer without first reading the Billy Elliot article and understanding the situation in Hungary. You will not receive credit for this discussion if it seems that you are coming at it uninformed.

Questions:

Billy Elliot also carries anti-government themes in its setting during the UK miner’s strike of 1984. The show depicts violent clashes between miners & police, and also blatantly mocks former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The miners in the play were without work for over a year. (I’m sure that resonates with some of you.) How do you think that aspect of the show effects the government’s interest in censoring the musical? Remember that many say Hungary is on its way to be a dictatorship.
What do you think the Hungarian government disliked about this show–its LGBTQ+ themes or it’s anti-government themes?
Is it acceptable that the government of Hungary forced the closure of this show?
Is censorship ever ok?
Does a public subsidy give the government the right to censor theatre in this way? Are we expecting too much if we say it shouldn’t? (I believe the phrase is “you can’t have your cake and eat it too?”)
Is it ok for the government to censor shows that have anti-government themes and storylines?
How does government censorship become an indicator of future laws and decrees that could inhibit human rights?
Please remember as you ponder these questions that although Hungary is technically a democracy, it is not American. Don’t assume they carry all the same values that we do.

Last Completed Projects